50 Airbus A321XLR for AA
 

Boeing is sleeping
 

As SLF I don't like single aisle on LR.:=

It's been nice knowing you, NMA.

Boeing thinks the market is better served by a new twin aisle... the mysterious NMA (aka 797), which would be slightly larger than the 757.

Every A321XLR sale potentially erodes the NMA business case. Announcement any day now... :}

It depends on LR.

We flew B757 across the pond ten years ago (MAN - New York) and the flights were absolutely fine. Seat pitch, IFE, food, all as good as a wide-body I had experienced before.

The real issue on these planes is the number of toilets available to economy class passengers. Flying in Europe on a traditional airline with different classes (Lufthansa A321) they reserve the front toilet for Business Class (say 28 people) meaning that two toilets have to serve about 166 passengers. Easy and Ryanair have three toilets for 180 passengers on A320/B737. It makes a difference on a flight if you are hanging around waiting for the toilet and disturbs passengers seated near the toilets..

You do know that Boeing discontinued the 757 15 years ago because no one was buying it, and the 757-300 was a major flop (40 aircraft built, they needed about 200 to break even).
To do a 757NG , it would need a new engine, meaning a new engine would have needed to exist in that thrust class (~40k lbs.). Not only was that not the case, none of the engine manufactures saw a business case for developing one. In fact that's still the case - for the NMA to be viable someone will need to step forward and develop the engine.

Boeing will make the 737-XLR a MAX with upgraded landing gear for increased MTOW and bigger fuel tanks :}

In the meantime, don't give up the day job ...

Timing, as they say, is everything. Boeing (apparently) wanted to do the New Small Airplane back in 2010ish, and this would have replaced both the 737 and 757. They couldn't crack large volume composite curing (think they were hoping for cold cure technology), and then were forced to compete with Airbus for the massive AA order...which gave birth to the MAX. Had they had the composite technology they wanted, the outcome could have been very different. A 797-8/9 to replace the 757 and a 797-3/4/5 (or somesuch) to replace the 737...the A320 would now be looking old hat.

I recently flew 3 legs on a Icelandair 757 and the comfort was great , However the one leg on a 767 was the worst flight ever . It was a leased Portugese ship with an interior designed for young children or pygmies.

https://www.google.com/search?q=euro...81zQqb5qqi53M:

I regularly SLF on Aeroflot's A321s and they have 3 lavs for economy. 2 in the middle and one at the back.

On a recent shorthaul flight with BA, the two rear toilets were dis pensed with, to fit on another row of seats and part of the rear galley was taken over by a single toilet!

CB

Look carefully Bobcat, there are two toilets down the back, the 2nd one has the cabin crew jump seat attached to the door so its easily missed. Bloody stupid layout that doesn't really work but there it is, more bums on seats is what the company want and is largely what they are getting.

Toilets? Really? I'm more concerned about the wing the 321 has. Hoping they redesign the thing for the XLR or an awful long time will be spent bouncing along at FL 300 while you all worry about your crappers...

Single aisle non-stop on LR works perfectly for me if it avoids a twin aisle and transfer at a hub!

NMA will be another knee jerk reaction...a frankenplane with a 767 metal hull with a 787 wing...

BSorry, they already did that, its called the 737-800ERX...well, not a MAX, but .the P-8 Poseidon is based on this (as no airlines bought it)

All it will then need is the associated metal-bashing and dodgy engineering to be ushered in under an existing Type Certificate to get late-1970s vintage hardware into the 21st century...

I wonder what could possibly go wrong there????? :oh:

to bad the fuel comsumption is too high, without Leap engines....not match

A temporary slump that had already lasted five years, and had no end in sight. I saw some of the Rolls proposals (I was working 757 at the time) - their 'updated' engine was short of the CFM56-7 on fuel burn/TSFC (which had already been in service for over five years). Aside from range, the 757-200, even with the updated Rolls engines, was killed by the 737-900ER in operating costs, and as I noted previously the 737 was way cheaper to build. The only way a '757NG' made sense was as the -300, and the operators had already figured out it was simply too big for a single aisle - turn times were horrid since it takes to long to load and unload. Further, while a good aircraft, the 757 is still a 1970s design. As for the 767-400 flight deck, the plan had originally been to spread it all through the 757/767 line, but that didn't happen. A big reason why it didn't end up on the 757 is that Boeing couldn't get Rolls to do a FADEC version of the RB211-535, so they had to retain throttle cables (which was incompatible with the 767-400 flight deck).
After ending the 757 production, that factory space was dedicated to building a couple of thousand 737NGs, that were sold quite profitably - instead of building a few 757s at a loss.
For all the bitching about the MAX being a re-hash of 1960s technology - the 757NG would be a rehash of 1970s technology with the same basic fuselage as the 737.
Time will tell what the NMA will be, and if it will be successful. But one thing about the NMA I can guarantee is that it won't be 50 year old technology.

Succinctly put, as ever. The industry abandoned the idea of a 757NG a long time ago, it only lives on in the columns of PPRuNe. :O

Dear me no, there's a regular haunting over on the forums on airliners.net, it's the topic that never dies. It's harder to shake than syphillis (allegedly) and genuinely comes up time after time after time. It really was an amazing aircraft but one from another age, I can't quite manage the fact t's old tech :(

Not quite.
The 757 airframe was basically the same as the 727. It even had a T tail originally.
The 767 was a completely new airframe.

Oh, and the 767-400 is a mess. Only two airlines ordered it (I think). Part 777 avionics and longer landing gear aside, its a compromise of an old airframe. Not good.

Wasn't the tooling/jigs all destroyed?

Boeing had a pretty good commercial team at the time, based in Seattle rather than Chicago, with of course extensive contacts with all their customers, and could see that demand for the 757 fell off a cliff after 9/11 and nobody was going to order more. BA actually started scrapping their fleet in 2000, many went for cargo even then because there was little secondhand demand. Remember that almost all 757s were ordered for sub-2,000nm operations, it was only later in their life that a fraction of the fleet got adapted for intercontinental work. The key thing by 2000 was that the A321 had come along, and quite a bit of this shorter haul demand got picked off by the 737-800/900 taking its market. Yes, these didn't have the performance of a rocket ship. They didn't have the costs of one either.